The leading Democratic candidates held their first debate last night and I wanted to give my impressions on how I feel they did.
First off, I'll say my overall impression was that the candidates performed pretty well. I really appreciated that the general tone of the debate was professional and civil. Though, these debates are generally well practiced and negotiated in advance so that might have been agreed on beforehand. The Democrats as a whole know they need to distance themselves from the behavior of the Republican candidates. Indeed, I find the Republican debates hard to watch because they never discuss policy but basically just spend the whole time insulting each other and trying to convince people they love God and America more than everyone else. A highly scripted affair which basically amounts to a campaign advertisement for the front runners rather than a real debate of their platforms and views. Anderson Cooper actually grilled the candidates and gave them good questions. My main criticism with the format was the fact that it turned out to essentially be a back and forth between Clinton and Sanders, with occasional appearances by O'Malley. I'm never really a fan of focusing on just the poll front runners. The point of these debates should be precisely to give the other candidates an opportunity to defend their platforms, at the very least to make people aware of what their platform is.
An issue I have with modern American televised debates is that they still try too hard to make it entertaining. Politics is not supposed to be entertaining like going to a concert or watching a movie. It's serious business, these people could potentially wield a lot of power and make important decisions that affect our daily lives. We shouldn't lose sight of that and turn this people into actors/entertainers. We shouldn't need famous grammy winning artists to come out and sing the national anthem. I guess this is more an issue with American society and their political engagement. The main issue is the fact that in order to get people to actually watch the debates, we need to turn it into a spectacle. No big TV network is going to broadcast a debate unless people watch it, it'll cost them too much. Leading to another big issue in modern politics, money. What we need are difficult but fair questions. A debate is a test of knowledge and how well the candidates can defend their positions and policies. Overall I feel like last night's debate did deliver with some good questioning and pressing candidates to answer the questions rather than sidestep and deflect.
Now for my impressions of the individual candidates:
Hillary Clinton
I think Hillary performed as expected, which is to say she did well. She has experience with debates and is a true politician, she was prepared, calm, and well composed. Her policies are designed to be mostly inoffensive and will be accepted by moderates and isn't a hard sell to the more progressive voter. It was very clear that she was trying to drive home the point that she is a woman and a grandmother, and electing her would mean electing the first female president. As nice as it would be to say that the U.S. finally elected its first female President, I really hope that isn't the main reason people will vote for her. There are more important issues that need to be focused on. However, I think my main concern with Hillary is that she epitomizes the old political elite of this country. She has no real incentive to tackle the systemic problems in our Government and political process because she also directly benefits from it, it's responsible for her success. So I doubt we'd get any meaningful action on issues such as campaign finance reform or Citizens United. She also stumbled a bit when pressed by Anderson Cooper about her reputation for her changing positions on issues, and not being willing to take a view on others, like legalization of marijuana. She had trouble defending herself on that and basically admitted that her stances are generally whatever is politically convenient, unwilling to take a firm stance on an issue.
Overall, I think she performed well but I wouldn't vote for her. She came across as the stereotypical practiced and rehearsed American establishment politician, pandering to the base voter with popular yet inoffensive policies. Willing to do or say anything for your vote, while at the same time, she is really only serving herself and her friends. She is part of the American political dynasty, the small circle of the elite who call the shots in Government through lobbying and back room deal making. Sometimes that's what you need to get things done, but at the same time, our political system needs to evolve away from that, away from special interests and dynastic nepotism.
I don't necessarily agree that Clinton 'won' the debate, she did well in style, but showed her weaknesses as a true establishment candidate, one chooses her positions based on political convenience. She also did not provide the best answers for how she will actually accomplish what she wants to do, or what it really is she wants to do.
Bernie Sanders
Out of all of the candidates I feel like Sanders came across as the most normal as a person and not a politician. He was imperfect, but in a genuine way. At the start of the debate, Sanders did not look too comfortable and at times almost sounded like the confused, angry old man on the street corner yelling at everyone to slow down. Though, he became more comfortable as the debate wore on and he settled in. With him it is clearly obvious that he was trying to hammer home that he cares about inequality and wants to fix the country's socioeconomic system. He wasn't very subtle about this, and that for me can get a little off putting. You already told me you think this is a problem, now tell me how you plan to solve it. On some questions, such as those about foreign policy and trade deals, he'd revert back to the importance of solving inequality rather than producing a solid answer on the actual subject. It was obvious that he is not as well versed on foreign policy issues as Clinton, but then again, she did serve as Secretary of State. One moment that I appreciated was how strongly he spoke out against Clinton's email "scandal". He wants to focus, rightfully, on the actual issues and not manufactured scandals. However, if you're thinking of political strategy, this only helps Clinton by taking some pressure off of her. I personally hope that his is just a sign that Sanders isn't interested in playing games and sideshows, but rather just wants to do his job.
He did stumble when pressed on his views of gun control and whether gun shops and manufacturers should be held accountable in mass shootings. Both Clinton and O'Malley were able to put him up against the ropes and challenged his conviction towards tougher gun laws. Sanders was unconvincing that he would want, or be able, to enact better gun control legislation and challenge the NRA influence.
Overall, I think Bernie wasn't bad but he wasn't flawless either. While I think he certainly has good ideas about reducing inequality, protecting the middle class, and decreasing education costs, he was somewhat unconvincing in how he'd actually manage to accomplish this. His views are going to be tough sell to moderates and conservatives. Clinton brought up a good point when Sanders mentioned we should look towards Denmark and Sweden as examples when it comes to socioeconomic policy; those countries are smaller than we are. Yet, the United States Government has the financial resources to fund any universal healthcare program if it really wanted to. Sanders could do well to avoid allowing his opponents to take easy shots like that when he makes a valid point.
Martin O'Malley
O'Malley had a decent showing as well, he had his strong moments, but also didn't get a lot of time. As I mentioned, the majority of the debate was a back and forth between Sanders and Clinton. However, O'Malley was able to interject on certain topics and differentiate himself. The best moment being his taking on Sanders and Clinton on gun control, backing himself up by stating his accomplishments in passing tough gun control legislation in Maryland. He correctly stated that he was the only candidate present who actually has did what the others say they want to do. Other than that O'Malley didn't really stand out in any particular way, no major mistakes, mainly because all the attention was on Sanders and Clinton.
Stylistically I feel he tried a little too hard to show that he was a good family man, to the point that it seems disingenuous and scripted. Why do we Americans want our politicians to keep parading out their families to show they are good people who understand us? I don't doubt that you do love your family, but that doesn't prove you can empathize with other people, or understand their problems better than a unmarried candidate. It certainly doesn't give you solid morality, as many politicians have proved in the past.
Overall a decent showing for a candidate that hasn't gotten as much exposure as he perhaps deserves. Is O'Malley a serious contender? I believe he can be.
Jim Webb
There is not a whole lot to say about Jim Webb other than I believe he had a somewhat difficult night. He had to fight for his time, trying to muscle his way into to back and forth between Clinton and Sanders. At times it was obvious he was getting frustrated by not being allowed to interject his opinion and ideas on certain issues. It was frustrating not to be able to hear a lot from both him and Chafee during the evening as we don't really have a good idea what they're all about. Webb was able to talk about his experience when it comes to defense and intelligence issues. I felt he showed a decent understanding of the need to balance protection of personal liberties and security when it comes to the NSA. He also talked about his understanding of immigrants and the value they bring to nation, mentioning how his own wife was an immigrant from Vietnam.
However, Webb had the most awkward moment of the night that kind of summed up his performance. When the candidates were asked "Which enemy are you most proud of?" the others talked about their political enemies, the coal lobby and special interest groups, Webb said "I'd have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me. But he's not around right now to talk to.". He then had a sort of awkward, proud grin on his face, the kind that says, "I showed him!". It seemed way off the mark for me. That's not something I'd want my President to say, is that how he'll act if he has to take the country to war? Certainly alluding to the fact that you literally killed your enemy is no laughing matter? Anyway, I don't mean to denigrate his service in anyway, far from it because I can't begin to image how difficult it must be to serve in combat. Which is exactly why I don't think wars and death should ever be seen as laughing matter by those in power.
As you may guess, I personally don't believe Webb is great candidate, he allowed himself to lose his cool a bit with the format of the debate. He also really should have done better with the enemy question.
Lincoln Chafee
Chafee also had a difficult night. He also didn't get to say a lot, the only positive being that he highlighted the lack of scandals during his 30 year career in public service. Which was in reference to Clinton, who has been somewhat plagued by scandal, albeit most of those scandals are really just the Republican party blowing certain things way out of proportion. Chafee was also pressed on whether he was actually a Democrat as he was previously a member of the Republican Party, and also ran as an independent. This makes it somewhat clear that he has no real political allegiance, but rather floats down the center of the aisle. For all intents and purposes you can probably call him a very moderate Republican.
However, Chafee really stumbled when grilled about his voting record. Particularly, when asked why he voted for Glass-Steagall he essentially replied with the popular excuse, "it was my first day!". He said it had been his very first vote. Chafee left himself exposed and Cooper did not hesitate to grill him, asking "Are you saying you don't know what you voted for?" This is where Chafee really stumbled for me as he again said that he had just arrived in the Senate and that Cooper was being too hard on him. I think Cooper's questioning was legitimate, it is crucial that you know what you are voting for before casting a vote. You can't just brush that off by saying it was your first day, essentially that you didn't know what you were doing. Chafee showed his weakness in not being able to come up with a good answer, but rather just saying the moderator is being too hard on him for asking him a very legitimate question.
Chafee showed that being scandal free doesn't necessarily mean you are a good leader. In my opinion I want to be assured that my President is actually reading the things that come across his desk and not just putting his signature on it, especially not on his first day. Whoops, I accidentally declared war on Russia, well, it was my first day!
Who would I vote for?
Based on this debate, I'm not sure actually. I think Sanders and Clinton are both front runners obviously.
I lean sympathetically towards Bernie, I think he represents more closely my own beliefs when it comes to economic and social policy. I also think he is the most relatable, most 'normal' person. My main concern is that I'm not sure he'll actually be able to accomplish what he wants to do. I'm also worried that more moderate Democrats and swing voters may see him as too much of an 'extremist' and a socialist, in the negative sense.
Clinton is an obvious strong politician, she knows what to say, and I do believe she'll know how to get things done as President. However, what is is that she really believes in? Her strength is that she knows how to work the system, but this also means having to do favors for special interests. This is also one reason I'm no so keen on voting for her.
O'Malley seems interesting to me and might have the potential to be a good President, however I don't know enough about him to form a true opinion.
